A new study shows that kids around the world who eat more fast food also have more severe asthma and allergies.

Could fast food cause that runny nose? A study published on Monday suggests it may.

The gigantic study looks at 400,000 kids from 51 countries. It found that teens who ate the most fast food were 39 percent more likely to have severe asthma. Younger children who ate the most fast food were 27 percent more likely to have severe asthma, the researchers report in the journal Thorax.

The kids who ate the most fruit, on the other hand, lowered their risk. Children who ate three or more servings of fruit a week – far below the two to three servings a day that experts recommend eating – were 11 to 14 percent less likely to have severe symptoms.

“Our results suggest that fast food consumption may be contributing to the increasing prevalence of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis and eczema in adolescents and children,” the researchers, Innes Asher of the University of Auckland in New Zealand and Hywel Williams of the Centre for Evidence Based Dermatology at Britain’s University of Nottingham, wrote.

If cause and effect are proved, they said, “then the findings have major public health significance owing to the rising consumption of fast foods globally.”

The findings were consistent in rich and poor countries, among boys and girls, and in many different societies across Europe, Africa, the Americas and Asia.

Kids were shown a video of what an asthma attack looked like, and answered questions about what they had eaten recently, and also about whether they had recently suffered any asthma attacks, any rhinoconjunctivitis (runny eyes and nose) and the itchy skin condition eczema.

The researchers defined severe asthma as four or more attacks of wheeze in the past year, or at least one attack every week. “The three categories for food intake were: never or occasionally; once or twice per week; and three or more times per week,” they added.

There were two groups of children – 6- and 7-year-olds, and 13-14 year-olds.

“For all centers combined, a consistently positive association was observed between all three conditions (current and severe) and intake of butter, fast food, margarine and pasta three or more times per week,” Asher and Williams wrote. The strongest finding: the kids who ate fast food three times a week or more were most likely to have asthma, runny nose and eczema.

Asthma and allergies are definitely on the rise, especially in developed countries, the researchers noted.

“Many developing countries are moving away from the traditional diet of locally grown foods as they become more westernized,” they added.

There’s the “hygiene hypothesis” of allergies – the idea that people’s immune systems are out of whack because children are no longer exposed to various microbes and parasites, from worms to germs, and thus over-react to harmless stimuli.

But there are also possible biological explanations for how fast food might cause a rise in allergies and asthma, too, the researchers point out.

“There is a whole bunch of evidence out there suggesting a plausible link between foods and asthma, “ Williams said by email.

“Saturated fatty acids, for example, have been shown to influence immune regulation in the body, and there is also some evidence to suggest a link between trans-fatty acids (found in margarine for example) and asthma. Or it could be something else such as sodium content (from salt), or sugar or carbs or even preservatives. We are just not sure, but the link through fatty acids seems the most plausible based on existing evidence.”

Many processed foods are rich in linoleic acid – one of the omega-6 fatty acids found in vegetable oils. It’s essential for health but it can displace another essential fatty acid, omega-3 fatty acid. These in turn, can affect the immune system, the researchers said.

Studies are also beginning to show that diet strongly affects the microbes living in and on the body, and that these so-called microflora can influence a person’s tendency to allergy and asthma.

“Current information on vitamins, minerals and prenatal diet and antioxidants show relationships between low levels of vitamins A and C and increased symptoms of asthma, and the beneﬁcial effects of consuming a Mediterranean diet characterized by higher consumption of whole grain cereals, oily ﬁsh, wine, fruits, nuts, legumes and olive oil showing less evidence of hay fever, skin allergy and wheezing,” they wrote.

“Maternal diet during pregnancy has the potential to inﬂuence fetal immune and airway development,” they added.

Studies have also implicated sugar in the diet.

Could kids who eat fast food also be more likely to live in the urban environments that are either too clean – supporting the hygiene hypothesis – or over-polluted?

“Absolutely, yes, but we did adjust for gender, region of the world, language and per capita gross national income,” Williams said. “There could of course be other factors that confound the relationship between recalled food intake and severe allergic disease, but it is unlikely to be pollution as it has not emerged as a strong or consistent predictor of allergic diseases,” Williams added.

“What surprised me in this study was that the findings are remarkably consistent when it comes to looking at specific regions of the world and within the different levels of affluence and sex.”

]]>http://drugsbite.com/fast-food-linked-to-asthma-and-allergies/feed/0GMO’s and increased use of herbicides and pesticideshttp://drugsbite.com/gmos-and-increased-use-of-herbicides-and-pesticides/
http://drugsbite.com/gmos-and-increased-use-of-herbicides-and-pesticides/#respondWed, 26 Dec 2012 16:46:20 +0000http://drugsbite.com/?p=577Monsanto’s combination of genetically modified seed and Roundup herbicide was supposed to ensure that crops across America grew tall while weeds were laid low. Some 15 years later, most of the corn, soybeans and cotton cultivated in the U.S. stems from these Roundup Ready seeds. But a growing number of these crop acres are also reluctant hosts of Roundup-resistant “superweeds.” Repeated application of the herbicide has literally weeded out the weak weeds and given the rare resistant weeds the opportunity to take over. The situation, according to a report published last Friday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, has driven growers to use larger quantities of Roundup, more often and in conjunction with a broader arsenal of other weed-killing chemicals.

Overall, the new study estimates that the engineering of crops immune to the same chemical compound that poisons weeds, and of crops capable of producing their own insecticides, has resulted in an additional 404 million pounds of toxic pesticides doused on U.S. fields between 1996 — when genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were first introduced as farm crops — and 2011. That’s about a 7 percent increase.

Many agricultural pesticides, including Roundup, don’t limit their harm to the target insects or weeds. Research has pointed to health risks for animals, beneficial insects, and people exposed to pesticides via air, water and food. More chemicals, experts warn, mean more hazards.

“It’s been a slowly unfolding train wreck,” said Charles Benbrook, author of the study and professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.

Benbrook, who served for many years as the chief scientist for The Organic Center, calculated a jump of 527 million pounds in herbicides only partially offset by a drop of 123 million pounds in insecticides over the 16-year period. He further projected that the herbicide situation will get worse and that the GMO-induced insecticide decrease is only temporary. Pests will continue to evolve resistance to older technologies, said Benbrook, as well as to new technologies developed to protect crops from greater use of older, generally more toxic pesticides such as 2,4-D.

McAllister said that he has witnessed biotech’s ongoing arms race with nature first-hand.

“Before biotech came on the market, we had one airplane in the county to do all the aerial spraying,” said McAllister. “Now they bring in seven or eight. We’ve got the same acreage of crops. They’re just spraying more.” He added that he’s seen a rise in the number of children with autism, allergies and cancer around his hometown of Mount Pleasant, Iowa. Most of the air and rain samples recently collected in Iowa as part of a study contained glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.

When asked about the new report, Tom Helscher, director of corporate affairs for Monsanto, said the company is “aware of the study and will review it thoroughly.”

Graham Brookes of PG Economics, a U.K. consulting group specializing in biotechnology, is critical of the new study. He suggested that Benbrook, who has been critical of GMOs in the past, used methods to fill gaps in incomplete U.S. Department of Agriculture data that served to overstate pesticide use on GMO crops and understate their use on non-GMO crops.

“He’s perfectly entitled to make his assumptions. But I’d say they are biased and inaccurate,” said Brookes, whose own industry-funded studies using what he says are more thorough market research data have concluded that GMOs reduce pesticide use. (Unlike the USDA information, the database used by Brookes is not publicly available.)

Benbrook said he thinks his assumptions were “conservative,” if anything. Other experts interviewed were not surprised by the conflicting findings and suggested both approaches had their limitations.

Many also shared Benbrook’s concern that, regardless of the volume of pesticides deployed to date, GMOs could trigger greater chemical dependency in the future.

Alex Lu of the Harvard School of Public Health pointed to GMO seeds resistant to multiple pesticides, including 2,4-D, which are likely to be approved in an effort to save farmers from Roundup-resistant superweeds.

“It will only kick the can down the road,” said Lu. “I’m afraid that we’re going to see the same problem, maybe even more severe, in the near future.”

Weeds resistant to 2,4-D are already popping up. Benbrook estimates that if 2,4-D-resistant corn is released, use of the chemical compound will increase 30-fold by 2019 from 2000 totals.

Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota, also sees the pattern unfolding with a Monsanto corn designed to fend off the crop’s biggest foe, rootworm, by producing its own Bt toxins.

“It had a lot of potential. Initially, we saw insecticide use decline remarkably,” said Ostlie.

However, within six years of the GMO corn’s arrival, superbugs that could withstand Bt appeared. They spread dramatically this summer, added Ostlie. Growers are now applying insecticides to supplement the failing GMO trait, which some studies suggest could pose its own health concerns despite industry claims of safety.

Yale University’s John Wargo said that agricultural companies control the studies that are the basis for licensing a new technology. “What that means is that industry has the opportunity to shape the image of a chemical,” he said.

The power of biotech and pesticide companies — typically one and the same — goes further, according to McAllister, who lost $1 million to Monsanto in a settlement years after confronting the company and then being accused of stealing its seeds, which he denies.

“Monsanto has control of what we plant,” he said. “It is out of control.”

]]>http://drugsbite.com/gmos-and-increased-use-of-herbicides-and-pesticides/feed/0Opinion: Canada’s mass firing of ocean scientists brings ‘silent summer’http://drugsbite.com/opinion-canadas-mass-firing-of-ocean-scientists-brings-silent-summer/
http://drugsbite.com/opinion-canadas-mass-firing-of-ocean-scientists-brings-silent-summer/#respondWed, 26 Dec 2012 16:41:49 +0000http://drugsbite.com/?p=564Editor’s Note: Canada is dismantling the nation’s entire ocean contaminants program as part of massive layoffs at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Among the scientists terminated are ones who have conducted landmark research about global pollutants for decades: Peter Ross, who is among the world’s leading experts on marine mammals and contaminants, Gary Stern, a mercury expert whose work focuses on the Arctic, Michel Lebeuf, who studies the highly contaminated St. Lawrence belugas and Michael Ikonomou, who researches flame retardants and other endocrine-disrupting contaminants in salmon and other ocean life. Ross told EHN that his main concern is the “wholesale axing of pollution research” that will leave Canada, and much of the world, without the scientific knowledge to protect whales, seals, fish and other marine life — as well as the indigenous peoples who rely on them for their traditional foods. Many scientists say the purpose of the move by the Canadian government is not just cost-cutting but to eliminate environmental rules and protect the oil and gas industry.

The following is an essay that Ross wrote Thursday for EHN. — Marla Cone, Editor in Chief

L. Mos/Fisheries and Oceans CanadaPeter Ross with young harbor seal.

Silent Summer

By Peter Ross

Since being hired 13 years ago as a Research Scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), I have been fortunate to conduct research on such magnificent creatures as killer whales, beluga whales, harbour seals and sea otters. I have visited some of the wildest parts of coastal British Columbia, Arctic Canada and further afield. I have been humbled by the power of Mother Nature as we deployed teams to explore and better understand the lives of creatures beneath the surface of the ocean. I have marveled at the evolutionary adaptations of marine mammals to an existence at the interface of land, sea and atmosphere. And as a scientist, I have come to learn that I possess but rudimentary powers of observation when it comes to the mystery and beauty of a vast ocean. For all of this, I remain eternally grateful.

A blend of challenging field work and cutting-edge laboratories has helped me to look into the lives of fish and marine mammals, and the ways in which some of the 25,000 contaminants on the domestic market affect their health. Our research has drawn on the combined expertise of dedicated technicians, biologists, vessel operators and aboriginal colleagues, ultimately leading to scientific publications now available around the world. This is knowledge that informs policies, regulations, and practices that enable us to protect the ocean and its resources, both for today’s users, and for future generations.

It is with apprehension that I ponder a Canada without any research or monitoring capacity for pollution in our three oceans… I am thankful for the rich array of opportunities aboard Canadian Coast Guard ships and small craft, alongside Fisheries Officers, chemists, habitat biologists and managers, together with colleagues, technicians, students and members of aboriginal communities. I have enjoyed weaving stories of wonder on such issues as the health of killer whales, effects of flame retardants on beluga whales, hydrocarbons in sea otter habitat, trends in priority pollutants in harbour seals, impacts of current use of pesticides on the health of salmon, the identification of emerging contaminants in endangered species and risk-benefit evaluation of traditional sea foods of First Nations and Inuit peoples.

…or any ability to manage its impacts on commercial fish stocks, traditional foods for over 300,000 aboriginal people and marine wildlife. Past scientific discoveries such as high levels of PCBs in Inuit foods, dioxins in pulp and paper mill effluent, and DDT-associated eggshell thinning in seabirds formed the basis for national regulations and an international treaty (the Stockholm Convention) that have led to cleaner oceans and safer aquatic foods for fish, wildlife and humans. Canada was a world leader in spearheading this profoundly important treaty, drawing on ground-breaking scientific research in tandem with the knowledge of aboriginal communities.

I am thankful to my friends, family, supporters and colleagues, who have always been there to converse, share, learn and teach – in the laboratory, in the field, in the cafeteria, in the hallway. These people have made it all worthwhile.

It is with deep regret that I relay news of my termination of employment at Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the loss of my dream job. It is with even greater sadness that I learn of the demise of DFO’s entire contaminants research program – regionally and nationally. It is with apprehension that I ponder a Canada without any research or monitoring capacity for pollution in our three oceans, or any ability to manage its impacts on commercial fish stocks, traditional foods for over 300,000 aboriginal people and marine wildlife.

Canada’s silence on these issues will be deafening this summer and beyond.

A landmark Environmental Protection Agency report concluding that children exposed to toxic substances can develop learning disabilities, asthma and other health problems has been sidetracked indefinitely amid fierce opposition from the chemical industry.

America’s Children and the Environment, Third Edition, is a sobering analysis of the way in which pollutants build up in children’s developing bodies and the damage they can inflict.
The report is unpublished, but was posted on EPA’s website in draft form in March 2011, marked “Do not Quote or Cite.” The report, which is fiercely contested by the chemical industry, was referred to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), where it still languishes.

For the first time since the ACE series began in 2000, the draft cites extensive research linking common chemical pollutants to brain damage and nervous system disorders in fetuses and children.

It also raises troubling questions about the degree to which children are exposed to hazardous chemicals in air, drinking water and food, as well exposures in their indoor environments – including schools and day-care centers – and through contaminated lands.

In the making since 2008, the ACE report is based on peer-reviewed research and databases from federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, Housing and Urban Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Public health officials view it as a source of one-stop shopping for the best information on what children and women of childbearing age are exposed to, how much of it remains in their bodies and what the health effects might be. Among the “health outcomes” listed as related to environmental exposures are childhood cancer, obesity, neurological disorders, respiratory problems and low birth weight.

The report cites hundreds of studies — both human, epidemiological studies that show a correlation between exposure to certain chemical pollutants and negative health outcomes, and animal studies that demonstrate cause and effect. In some cases, the authors note, certain chemicals have been detected in children, but not enough is known about their effects to draw conclusions about safety.

In a section on perfluorochemicals (PFCs), for example, which are used to make nonstick coatings, and protect textiles and carpets from water, grease and soil, among other things, the draft notes that they are found in human breast milk.

The report said that “a growing number of human health studies” have found an association between prenatal exposure to PFCs and low birth weight, decreased head circumference and low birth length. It also stated that based on “emerging evidence suggests that exposure to some PFCs can have negative impacts on human thyroid function.”

Furthermore, it noted that animal studies produced similar results, although exposures were typically at higher levels than people are exposed to.

The EPA’s website still notes that the report will be published by the end of 2011. But after a public comment period that was marked by unusually harsh criticism from industry, additional peer review and input from other agencies, the report landed at OMB last March, where it has remained. No federal rule requires the OMB to review such a report before publication, but EPA spokeswoman Julia Valentine said the agency referred it to the OMB because its impact cuts across several federal agencies.

The spokeswoman said EPA had no idea when OMB would release it, allowing publication.

A spokeswoman for the White House Office of Management and Budget said she would not discuss the review process or give an estimated release date.

Some present and former EPA staffers, who asked not to be named for fear of losing their jobs, blamed the sidetracking of the report on heightened political pressure during the campaign season. The OMB has been slow to approve environmental regulations and other EPA reports throughout the Obama Administration — as it was under George W. Bush according to reports by the Center for Progressive Reform, a nonprofit consortium of scholars, doing research on health, safety and environmental issues, which generally advocate for stronger regulation and better enforcement of existing law.

“Why is it taking so long? One must ask the question,” said a former EPA researcher who works on children’s health issues. “It is an important document and it strikes me that it’s falling victim to politics.”

The EPA states that the report is intended, in part, to help policymakers identify and evaluate ways to minimize environmental impacts on children.

That’s an unwelcome prospect to the $674 billion chemical industry, which stands to lose business and face greater legal liability if the EPA or Congress bans certain substances mentioned in the report or sets standards reducing the levels of exposure that is considered safe.

Among other findings, the report links numerous substances to ADHD, including certain widely available pesticides; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS), which were banned in 1979 but are still present in products made before then and in the environment; certain polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants; and methyl mercury, a toxic metal that accumulates in larger fish, such as tuna. The draft also cites children’s exposure to lead, particularly from aging lead water pipes, as a continuing problem (See previous coverage, Toxic Taps.)

Among the other widespread contaminants linked to learning disabilities is perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel , fireworks and other industrial products, which has polluted water around the country. The Department of Defense, which wants to avoid paying to clean it up, is alarmed by research showing that the chemical interferes with thyroid function and otherwise damages the nervous system, according to R. Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and an expert on perchlorate.

Zoeller, who has served on EPA advisory panels studying the issue, said the Pentagon’s concern was evidenced by the Air Force’s hiring of two consultants – Richard Mavis and John DeSesso — to help shape its response to the research. He noted that in 2009, after their consulting contract had ended, Mavis and DeSesso wrote a letter to the editor of Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, attacking an EPA scientist’s study showing that perchlorate may damage the brain. “I don’t like my tax dollars going for one federal agency to refute the work done by scientists at EPA,” he said. The Defense Department and the Air Force declined to comment on the publication, but spokeswoman Melinda Morgan wrote that, “The DoD is aware that there are many differing opinions on the science related to perchlorate health effects,” and believes the current level permitted by EPA is safe.

One of the new sections of the report notes that children may be widely exposed to pollutants in schools and day-care centers. Among them are pesticides; lead; PCBs; asbestos, a mineral fiber long used as insulation and fire-proofing; phthalates, chemicals that are used to soften vinyl and as solvents and fixers, and are found in numerous consumer goods, among them: toys, perfumes, medical devices, shower curtains and detergents; and perfluorinated chemicals, which are used in non-stick and stain-proof products. The study notes that these substances are (variously) associated with asthma, cancer, reproductive toxicity and hormone disruption.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) , the chief industry trade group, has accused EPA of lacking objectivity and vilifying its products. It has filed dozens of pages of comments accusing the EPA of ignoring certain studies – including some funded by ACC itself — that would help businesses make the case that their products are safe. The ACC also contends that EPA has not included enough positive comments about the role of chemicals in society.

“ACC members apply the science of chemistry to make innovative products and services that make people’s lives better, healthier and safer,” wrote ACC senior toxicologist Richard A. Becker. … “The exclusive focus on exposure is particularly problematic as it may lead to the incorrect conclusion that exposure to chemicals (e.g. phthalates) at any level is not only cause for concern, but also a direct source of negative health effects.”

Becker also expressed the ACC’s contention that EPA was painting too bleak a picture of children’s health in America.

“It is troubling that the draft ACE report seems to make such little effort to provide a complete overall picture of child health in the United States,” Becker wrote. “For example, the draft report does not refer to The Health and Well-Being of Children: A Portrait of States and the Nation … which concludes the health and well-being of children in the U.S. is improving overall with 84.4% of children in the United States listed as being in excellent or very good health, an increase from 83% in 2003.” Other ACC members, representing manufacturers of BPA, phthalates and other substances, also weighed in against the report.

Nsedu Witherspoon, executive director of the Children’s Environmental Health Network and a member of the EPA Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, which oversaw the report, called it a major accomplishment, reflecting the explosion of science since the first ACE was published. She also praised EPA chief Lisa Jackson for standing behind it.
Industry critics, Witherspoon said, “in many cases are the same ones out there trying to debunk the original research,” that the study cites.

UC Berkeley researchers link prenatal and childhood exposure to PBDE flame retardants, a prevalent chemical found in households, to deficits in motor and cognitive development among school-aged children.

The new study, published today (Thursday, Nov. 15) in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, focuses on PBDEs, or polybrominated diphenyl ethers, a class of persistent, endocrine-disrupting compounds widely found in foam furniture, electronics, carpets, upholstery and other consumer products. The chemicals easily leach out into the environment and are inhaled or ingested through dust, then accumulate in human fat cells.

The researchers collected blood samples taken from 279 women during pregnancy or at delivery, and from 272 of the children when they were 7 years old. Analyses of the blood samples were conducted at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

The children participated in a battery of standardized tests when they were 5 and 7 to assess their attention, fine motor coordination and IQ (verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory and processing speed). Mothers and teachers also completed assessment questionnaires to help evaluate the children’s attention skills and behavior.

“This is the largest and most comprehensive study to date to examine neurobehavioral development in relation to body burden measures of PBDE flame retardants,” said study lead author Brenda Eskenazi, Jennifer and Brian Maxwell Professor of Maternal and Child Health and Epidemiology. “We measured PBDEs both in the mothers during pregnancy and in the children themselves. It shows that there is a relationship of in utero and childhood levels to decrements in fine motor function, attention and IQ.”

The new findings stem from a longitudinal study, the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS), which examines environmental exposures and reproductive health. The study participants are primarily Mexican-Americans living in an agricultural community in Monterey County. Earlier studies found that children from the CHAMACOS group had PBDE blood concentrations seven times higher than children living in Mexico.

Evidence of adverse human health effects from PBDE exposure has been steadily building over the past decade. Other CHAMACOS studies have also revealed links between flame retardant concentrations in mothers’ blood and decreased fertility, lower birthweight babies and changes in thyroid hormone levels, even after controlling for exposure to pesticides and other environmental chemicals. And findings from other smaller studies have linked deficits in physical and mental development in young children to prenatal exposure to PBDEs.

Flame retardant chemicals

Flame retardant chemicals can leach out from upholstered furniture, particularly if the foam is exposed through rips.

“This new study is very important because it confirms earlier published research on the neurodevelopmental effects of PBDE exposure,” said Heather Stapleton, associate professor of environmental chemistry at Duke University and one of the nation’s leading experts on human exposure to flame retardant chemicals. Stapleton was not part of the UC Berkeley study.

Use of PBDEs increased in the 1970s in response to a California standard (Technical Bulletin 117) requiring that consumer furnishings be able to withstand a small open flame for 12 seconds without igniting.

Today, PBDEs can be found in the blood of up to 97 percent of U.S. residents, with those in California having levels nearly twice the national average, according to studies.

“Within the range of PBDE exposure levels, 5 percent of the U.S. population has very high exposure levels, so the health impact on children in these extremes could be even more significant,” noted Stapleton.

There are three formulations of PBDEs — pentaBDE, octaBDE and decaBDE — that have been developed for commercial use as flame retardants. Penta- and octaBDE have both been banned for use in several U.S. states, including California, but they are still present in products made before 2004. In addition, three major manufacturers have agreed to phase out production of decaBDE by 2013.

“Even though pentaPBDEs are not being used anymore, old couches with foam that is disintegrating will still release PBDEs,” said Eskenazi, director of the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health (CERCH) at UC Berkeley. “These chemicals will be in our homes for many years to come, so it’s important to take steps to reduce exposure.”

The bottom shelf of the refrigerator collects all the germs from the meat dripping down. Dr. Charles Gerba says wipe down the bottom shelf every two weeks with a disinfectant made for the kitchen.

“In most cases, it’s safer to make a salad on a toilet seat than it is to make one on a cutting board,” says Dr. Charles Gerba (a.k.a. Dr. Germ), a microbiologist and professor at the University of Arizona in Tucson. “People disinfect their toilet seats all the time, but they don’t realize that they really need to pay attention in the kitchen too.” Since 1973, he’s been studying the hidden bacteria lurking in American homes, and his findings should influence your behavior when it comes to storing a toothbrush (in the medicine cabinet) and how to flush a toilet (lid down). Here, Dr. Germ identifies the top five dirtiest spots in the kitchen and gives advice on how to banish nasty germs.

1. Sponges and dishcloths

“We did a survey collecting 1,000 sponges and dishcloths in kitchens, and about 10 percent had salmonella. They get wet and stay moist, so bacteria grow like crazy. The most E. coli and other fecal-based bacteria in the average home are on a sponge or cleaning cloth.”

Dr. Germ’s advice: “Replace dishcloths every week and throw the sponge into the dishwasher or microwave it on high for 30 seconds.”

2. Sink

“There’s more E. coli in a kitchen sink than in a toilet after you flush it. The sink is a great place for E. coli to live and grow since it’s wet and moist. Bacteria feed on the food that people put down the drain and what’s left on dishes in the sink. That’s probably why dogs drink out of the toilet—because there’s less E. coli in it,” says Dr. Germ.

Dr. Germ’s advice: “Clean the sink basin with a disinfectant product made for the kitchen. Vinegar and lemon juice can clean some bacteria, but they can’t clean really bad pathogens, so the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t recommend using them as an alternative.”

3. Cutting board

“In most cases, it’s safer to make a salad on a toilet seat than it is to make one on a cutting board. There’re 200 times more fecal bacteria from raw meat on the average cutting board in a home than a toilet seat. Most people just rinse their cutting board, but poultry and raw meat can leave behind salmonella and campylobacter.” The latter bacteria, which can come from eating raw meat, is one of the most common causes of food-borne illness, according the FDA.

Dr. Germ’s advice: “Use one cutting board for meats and another one for vegetables, so you don’t get cross-contamination. Boards can be cleaned with a kitchen disinfectant or put it in a dishwasher.” As to whether you should buy a wood or plastic cutting board: “We used to always recommend using plastic cutting boards, but wood seems to have antimicrobial resins, so it’s a toss-up.”

4. Bottom shelf of the refrigerator

“When we looked at refrigerators, the bottom shelf tends to have the most bacteria, because moisture and condensation drip down from the upper shelves. People often put produce on a bottom shelf and defrost a meat product above it.”

Dr. Germ’s advice: “Wipe down the bottom shelf every two or three weeks with a disinfectant cleaner that’s made for the kitchen. To avoid cross-contamination, put raw meat on the bottom shelf and tuck raw produce into a drawer away from everything else.”

5. Kitchen counter-tops

“Kitchen countertops tend to be the dirtiest near the sink area because people wipe them down with sponges and cleaning cloths that have E. coli and other bacteria. The sponges and cloths just spread the germs all over the countertops.”

]]>http://drugsbite.com/is-your-kitchen-dirtier-than-a-toilet-seat/feed/0Flossing and Going to the Dentist can Prevent Colon and Stomach Cancerhttp://drugsbite.com/flossing-and-going-to-the-dentist-can-prevent-colon-and-stomach-cancer/
http://drugsbite.com/flossing-and-going-to-the-dentist-can-prevent-colon-and-stomach-cancer/#respondTue, 20 Mar 2012 12:52:43 +0000http://drugsbite.com/?p=490Did you know that going to the dentist may prevent you from developing colon cancer? That’s because scientists have discovered that bacteria responsible for dental plaque is also found in high numbers in colorectal tumors.

Using DNA sequencing techniques, researchers have isolated Fusobacterium cells in the abnormal tissue of bowel cancers which are the second leading cause of cancer deaths in North America. Earlier studies have revealed that this same bacterium is associated with ulcerative colitis but this research suggests that the presence of this microorganism may change the local environment of the bowel making it susceptible to the formation of a cancerous growth.

If this theory is proven, it would mark the second time that a bacterium has been linked to a gastrointestinal neoplasm; the first discovery being the association between Helicobacter pylori and the development of stomach cancer.

Ingesting higher levels of cadmium, a metal found in fertilizers, may be linked to an increased risk of breast cancer, a new study from Sweden suggests.
The results showed that postmenopausal women with a relatively high daily dietary cadmium intake had a 21 percent increased risk of breast cancer.

The major sources of cadmium in the diets of women in the study were foods that are generally healthy — whole grains and vegetables. These accounted for about 40 percent of the cadmium consumed.

The reason for the link may be that cadmium can cause the same effects in the body as the female hormone estrogen, the researchers said…

The researchers said they are concerned that cadmium is found in foods we consider healthy. The metal is well-absorbed by farmed plants, and fertilizers used to help grow our fruits, vegetables and grains contain cadmium.

The researchers noted that whole grains and vegetables, which were found to contain the most cadmium, have many beneficial nutrients— some that likely counteract the negative effects of the toxic medal.

A group of compounds used in a variety of products, including water-resistant clothing and microwave popcorn, may prevent childhood vaccinations from working properly, a new study says.

In the study, children who had higher concentrations of these compounds, called perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), in their blood had lower immune responses to diphtheria and tetanus vaccinations. An insufficient immune response to a vaccination can mean a child is actually vulnerable to catching a disease even though they’ve beenvaccinated against it.

Indeed, the levels of antibodies in the blood of some children exposed to PFCs indicated they were not protected against these diseases by age 7.

“When we take our kids to the doctor’s office to get their shots, we expect that the vaccines are going to work,” said study researcher Dr. Philippe Grandjean, of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. “What we found was that there was an increasing risk that they didn’t work if the kids had been exposed to the PFCs,” Grandjean said.

Steve adds: be careful when microwaving popcorn not to open the hot bag and inhale the fumes. They can cause a health problem called Popcorn Lung, which has sickened dozens of employees at popcorrn manufactures.